Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Anyone else for the myth of junk DNA? Richard Dawkins, for one

Denyse O'Leary
July 13, 2011
'Junk DNA', Darwinism
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
The Selfish Gene

He certainly drew the desired Darwinian conclusion:

“The amount of DNA in organisms,” Dawkins wrote in 1976, “is more than is strictly necessary for building them: A large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this seems paradoxical. If the ‘purpose’ of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA. “

– Jonathan Wells, author of The Myth of Junk DNA, p. 20

And he was wrong as a result. Just like these folk:

Jerry Coyne and Michael Shermer. Oh, and Francis Collins, though he may be coming round.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Actually, one scientist maintains that junk DNA plays a vital role in yielding special forms of RNA. Article: http://www.lifescientist.com.au/article/309063/junk_no_more_-_rnas_get_networking/Barb
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
Thus, it really is true that many species have way more DNA than is needed to build them. So. What. This is the primary data in support of the idea that a lot of the genome is junk. Why? Why do creationists/ID guys never mention this overwhelmingly important observation? Perhaps we're waiting for an argument that consist of more than a non-sequitur.Mung
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Does Sternberg plan on presenting his research on mRNA splicing as it relates to the issue of junk DNA at the pertinent Cold Spring Harbor Meeting in August? Just wondering.Arthur Hunt
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Dawkins is right. Many very similar species have very different genome sizes. For example, onions. Many "simpler" species, like lungfish and ferns, have genomes up to 100 times bigger than the human genome. Thus, it really is true that many species have way more DNA than is needed to build them. This has been known for decades. This is the primary data in support of the idea that a lot of the genome is junk. Why do creationists/ID guys never mention this overwhelmingly important observation?NickMatzke_UD
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
"The amount of DNA in organisms,” Dawkins wrote in 1976, “is more than is strictly necessary for building them" Probably true-deletion of fairly large swaths of DNA shows no apparent negative effect. "A large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein." True. A large amount of it doesn't even seem to get transcribed, or is rarely transcribed as background noise. "The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA." True. Transposons, ERVs, and other genome parasites, for example show this behavior. I don't see the obviously false statement.DrREC
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply